ÿWPC| ÁU2Ý¥~ÌeyÏm DðõöÿÂð*y;S¿Ùhl´5)s{óñFq§Ñ¥Q«€Å0ž–N«å5# ¼~áýåvA!›€mðÑkP8íÝI+؇_p®=“L'¾×bÂïD°xæ¨6Óžå1W"£›3Ù²õ;=¤˜¿”KòÍ…Q`¸ÛÞlÃ#Ýáía丷ʓó¨ Iíj÷ÍîOžëÕm“Q2oI”¤ŒTZ÷*DLJ¡±Ð²‰9ÿpC`¯@WSü¬€(ã(b#Û,\1 \ÇïªhÀœª*°Q…)Y»d°Ð©ÒQdŒBÁô~÷ÚÆz/ƒ*NàIæU„üý3vhèE¦ìníÿ­•–uÜ*(n„N¯Ÿh-k‰¬ô´æ6Õš§Ž ÛGMÉ„b—)°|®õØ%ÿÇ9¿ÂýgQÐUG.tnÊB3‹V7´Œ¨c¹Àž—åe&ô-g?—2ÞbV8Â×üëļI ÇiI½Úå ý¨1kÌÒ8qÎ_(ÇÍ¢æ¿k¦Þ[, ðáãüïÍúµ1C°å+L³?F±ë¥NwVK ’Þ+×=MÙ1àWóˆÁ$ ží¼Þnü}Ã׋ÉvUÅ´_¶—žjÞÛ½C§Œêz$­sl/# ’U H %å 0¿ëªw@²4òœ 0± 0D´ ø UFû A BG ‰U:‰U:ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà AQýÆN 0D 0DX 0Dœœ D/àà B D3,,,,, B_˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ<à09Z 0Courier (W1) RegularX(—;d$¡¡Ô€X|XXXÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑTRY(3Ø' LetterY(3Ø' Letter3Ø' Letter3Ø' LetterTÑ ÆDÇ[ÈÉDÊËÌEÍÎÓ€ØÖ~-&urier 3|xØ ’Ý ƒ §$ÝÔ€Xü2XXXÔÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòThe€State€Attorney€General€was€allowed€to€intervene€in€the€trial€court€toÐ ¸  Ðdefend€the€constitutionality€of€the€child€support€guidelines,€however,€since€theÏconstitutional€issues€were€not€addressed,€the€Attorney€General€is€not€a€participantÏin€this€appeal.óó(³(3·$¤¤Ý ƒ;d!ÝÔ€XÈUXXXÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑTRY 3Ø' Letter3Ø'3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ùÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XXXXXÔÔ€ÊXXXÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XXXÊÔÐ  ÐÌJanuary€20,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó<¾½Q 9Z ‹.Courier New RegularH 8Ý ƒ §$ÝÔ€Xü2XXXÔÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòWe€do€not€believe€that€this€statement€of€policy,€per€se,€can€be€taken€asÐ ¸  Ðauthority€to€refuse€to€decide€a€con‚stitutional€challenge€to€a€statute,€rule€orÏregulation.óó<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpi,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd....'ÿÿdxd dÝ ƒ;d!ÝÔ€XÈUXXXÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑTRY 3Ø' Letter3Ø'3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  ÝѸ °ÑñÎñ›ñÎñѰÑÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ LegalY 3Ø' Letter AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' LetterTÑÑ  ÑÑ7€ÈUXXdÈdÈ7ÑñØññÎñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eȼ ` 8ttxP¸ ð  rßñÎññØññØññØññÎñ›ñÎñ€€€à@ˆˆìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSˆÐ ¸  ÐñØññØñà@$ìàAT€œNASHVILLE›ˆÌÌñØñœßt€ )>.*jxœÿj` `€€@Edz` 8ttxPœð j tß›ñØñÌÌÌÌJANET€K.€FLORENCE,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à  àCOFFEE€CHANCERYÐ 0x Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€C.€A.€NO.€01A01„9802„CH„00085Ì€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellee€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à  àHON.€JOHN€œROLLINS›Ð p¸  Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à  àCHANCELLORÐ 8€  Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌDAVID€G.€FLORENCE,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à  àREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÐ è0 Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Defendant„Appellant€€€)ÌÌÌÌÌÌALBERT€F.€MOORE,€Neal€&€œHarwell›,€œPLC›,€Nashville,€for€Appellant.ÌÌÌW.€THOMAS€PARSONS,€PARSONS,€œNICHOLS›€&€JOHNSON,€Manchester,€forÏAppellee.ÌÌÌÓÓà@àà$ìàòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóˆÐ  (è% ÐÌà€ˆˆ?(#àMcMurray,€J.ˆÌÌà  àThis€is€an€appeal€from€a€proceeding€for€modification€of€aÏchild€support€decree.€€The€appellee€(wife)€filed€a€petition€for€anÏincrease€in€child€support.€€The€appellant€(husband)€answered€andÏfiled€a€counterclaim€which,€among€other€things,€challenged€theÏconstitutionality€of€the€Child€Support€Guidelines€and€theirÏapplication€under€the€circumstances€of€the€case.€€The€trial€courtÏdeclined€to€address€the€constitutional€issues€and€denied€anyÏaffirmative€relief€to€the€husband€on€the€grounds€that€he€had€comeÐ Ð9.;w Ðinto€court€with€"unclean€hands."€€The€court€thereafter€applied€theÏChild€Support€Guidelines€as€amended€in€December€1994,€retroactivelyÏwith€some€deviation€and,€among€other€things,€entered€judgmentÏagainst€the€husband€in€the€amount€of€$92,132.50.€€We€reverse€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€in€its€entirety.ÌÌà  àWe€first€note€that€this€is€the€second€time€this€case€has€beenÏbefore€this€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòFlorence€v.€Florenceóó,€1996€Tenn.€App.€LEXISÐ ¨ð  Ð174.€€On€the€first€appeal,€the€case€was€remanded€to€the€trial€courtÏfor€reconsideration€of€child€support€in€view€of€the€December€1994Ïamendments€to€the€Child€Support€Guidelines.€€Upon€remand€a€newÏhearing€was€held€which€resulted€in€the€judgment€from€which€thisÏappeal€is€taken.ÌÌà  àThe€proceedings€which€gave€rise€to€the€judgment€from€which€theÏfirst€appeal€was€taken€are€summarized€as€follows:€€In€April€1994,Ïthe€wife€filed€a€petition€for€an€increase€in€child€support.€€AÏhearing€on€the€petition€was€held€on€November€10,€1994.€€Obviously,Ïthe€December€1994€guidelines€were€not€in€effect€at€the€time€of€theÏfiling€of€the€petition€nor€the€hearing.€€The€œguidelines'›€amendmentsÏwere€effective,€however,€before€the€entry€of€the€court's€judgment.€ÏOn€appeal,€the€wife€argued€that€this€court€should€remand€the€caseÏwith€instructions€that€the€trial€court€apply€the€amended€guide…¼lines.€€This€court€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8  àà ` àThis€case€is€procedurally€analogous€to€òòFleming€v.Ð È2'2 ÐFlemingóó,€1995€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€676,€No.Ð 3Ø'3 Ð01A01-9504-CV-00178€(Tenn.€App.€Oct.€19,€1995),€whereinÏthe€court€addressed€the€issue€of€whether€a€custodialÏparent€could€claim€the€benefit€of€changes€in€the€childÏsupport€guidelines€that€became€effective€after€a€trial€onÏthe€petition€for€increase€in€support,€but€prior€to€entryÏof€the€trial€court's€final€order.€€There,€the€appellantÐ @8ˆ,9 Ðcustodial€parent€had€argued€that€if€the€appellate€courtÏaffirmed€the€trial€court's€decision,€she€would€simplyÏfile€a€new€petition€for€modification,€necessitatingÏapplication€of€the€new€guidelines.€€Indeed,€Ms.€FlorenceÏalludes€to€this€fact€in€her€appellate€brief€as€well.ÏñÇñòòñÇñFlemingñÇñóóñÇñ€remanded€the€cause€in€the€interests€of€"judicialÐ (#p Ðeconomy."€€We,€likewise,€conclude€that€this€matter€shouldÏbe€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€consideration€of€theÏnew€regulations.€The€parties€are€to€be€allowed€to€presentÏnew€or€additional€evidence€relating€thereto.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓÌà  àOn€remand,€a€new€hearing€was€held.€€The€trial€court€declinedÏto€address€the€constitutional€issues€raised€by€the€husband€on€theÏgrounds€that€the€defendant€was€in€wilful€contempt€of€court€andÏaccordingly€was€barred€from€affirmative€relief€by€the€equitableÏdoctrine€of€"unclean€hands."׃ ×Ý ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€are€of€the€opinion€that€theÐ (2p&) Ðdoctrine€of€"unclean€hands",€per€se,€is€not€sufficient€to€deny€aÏparty€the€right€to€challenge€the€constitutionality€of€a€statute,Ïrule€or€regulation€or€its€application€under€the€circumstances€ofÏthe€case.ÌÌà  àNeither€party€has€called€our€attention€to€any€authority€fromÏthis€jurisdiction€which€directly€addresses€the€question€of€whetherÏthe€doctrine€of€"unclean€hands"€may€be€interposed€to€defeat€aÏparty's€right€to€have€the€constitutionality€of€a€rule,€regulationÏor€statute€determined.€€The€appellant€points€to€several€cases€fromÏwhich€it€may€be€inferred€that€it€is€inappropriate€to€apply€theÏdoctrine€of€"unclean€hands"€in€the€face€of€a€constitutionalÏchallenge.€€òòSee€e.g.óó€òòState€v.€Collinsóó,€528€S.W.2d€814€(Tenn.€1975);€Ð 8"€ ÐòòFranks€v.€Stateóó,€772€S.W.2d€428€(Tenn.€1989);€òòPlanned€ParenthoodÐ $` МAssñÈñnñÈññÉñ'sñÉññÊñ.ñÊñ›€v.€œMcWherter›óó,€817€S.W.2d€13€(Tenn.€1991);€òòLeech€v.€AmericanÐ ø%@ ÐBooksellers€Ass'n.,€Inc.óó,€582€S.W.2d€738€(Tenn.€1979);€and,€òòMcMinnÐ Ø'  ÐBoard€of€Education€v.€Andersonóó,€292€S.W.2d€œ198€(Tenn.€1956).›Ð ¸)  ÐÌà  àIn€the€concurring€opinion€of€Justice€Drowota€in€òòSummers€v.Ð x-À!$ ÐThompsonóó,€764€S.W.2d€182€(Tenn.€1988),€we€find€the€followingÐ X/ #& Ðstatement:ÌÌÓÓà8  àà ` àA€long€and€unchallenged€custom€cannot€con‚‚‚‚stitƒ¼utionalize€a€practice€that€is€eventually€shown€to€beÏrepugnant€to€the€fundamental€law.€€...€as€Justice€FreemanÏnoted€in€his€separate€opinion€in€òòLynn€v.€Polkóó,€supra,€[76Ð È7,/ ÐTenn.€121€(1881)]€76€Tenn.€at€144,€"consideration€ofÏconsequences€is€not€for€us€--€only€duty€is€to€be€known,Ïand€faithfully€done."€If€the€Constitution€is€to€remainÏviable€and€its€integrity€maintained,€this€Court€has€noÏalternative€but€to€enforce€it€regardless€of€any€lesserÏpolicy€considerations€because€"the€intent€and€meaning€ofÏthe€Constitution,€when€arrived€at€in€accordance€with€theÏestablished€principles€of€construction,€is€the€SupremeÏlaw€of€the€land.€.€.€."€òòPope€v.€œPhifer›óó,€50€Tenn.€682,€686Ð 8€ Ð(1870),€overruled€on€other€grounds€126€Tenn.€106,€148ÏS.W.€229€(1912).€"No€argument€from€policy,€or€inconve…¼nience,€or€the€harmony€of€the€system€can€be€permitted€toÏhave€any€weight€in€the€decision€of€[a€constitutional]Ïquestion."€òòœSheppard›€v.€Johnsonóó,€21€Tenn.€285,€296€(1841).Ð è0  ÐòòSee€alsoóó€òòState€ex€rel.€Coleman€v.€Campbellóó,€supra,€at€387Ð Ø  Ð(Freeman,€J.,€dissenting).€€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌòòIdóó.,€at€page€199.Ð ¨ð ÐÌÓÓÌà  àThere€can€be€no€doubt€that€the€perception€of€constitutionalÏœprincipñÁñlesñÁññÁñalsñÁñ›€espoused€by€Justice€Drowota€and€set€out€above€areÏestablished€on€solid€constitutional€foundations.€€We€believe€thatÏit€can€be€equally€said€that€maxims€in€equity,€such€as€the€œ"unclean›Ïhands"€doctrine,€cannot,€in€general,€be€used€to€override€constitu…¼tional€considerations.ÌÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€Kingóó,€1997€Tenn.€œCrim›.€App.€LEXIS€893,€the€lateÐ ˆ,Ð # ÐJoe€B.€Jones,€then€presiding€judge€of€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals,€made€the€following€astute€observation:ÌÌÓÓà8  àà ` àIn€this€jurisdiction,€an€unconstitutional€statute€orÏan€amendment€to€a€constitutional€statute€is€void€abÏinitio€--€from€the€date€of€its€enactment.€òòState€v.Ð è50*- ÐDriveróó,€598€S.W.2d€774,€776€(Tenn.€1980);€òòLeech€v.Ð Ø6 +. ÐAmerican€Booksellers€Ass'n.€Inc.óó,€582€S.W.2d€738,€740Ð È7,/ Ð(Tenn.€1979);€òòState€v.€Dixonóó,€530€S.W.2d€73,€74€(Tenn.Ð ¸  Ð1975).€€Therefore,€the€unconstitutional€provision€doesÏnot€have€the€effect€of€amending€or€superseding€theÏexisting€constitutional€statute.€€òòIdóó.€In€other€words,€theÐ ˆÐ Ðprior€constitutional€statute€is€unaffected€by€the€effortÏto€amend€or€supersede€the€statute,€and€it€remains€in€fullÏforce€and€effect.Ð Ð Ð  Ѐ€ÌÌÓÓà  àWe€agree€with€this€observation€and€further€observe€that€theÏsame€rule€applies€in€its€application€to€rules€and€regulationsÏpromulgated€pursuant€to€governmental€authority.€€Therefore,€if€theÏallegations€of€the€appellant€in€this€case€should€be€sustained,€theÏamended€Child€Support€Guidelines€would€have€no€effect.ÌÌà  àFinally,€in€òòœKovach›€v.€œMaddux›óó,€238€F.€Supp.€835,€845€(M.D.Ð h° ÐTenn.€1965),€we€find€the€following€persuasive€statement:ÌÌÓÓà8  àà ` àThe€doctrine€of€unclean€hands,€while€having€applica…¼tion€upon€a€proper€€state€of€facts€in€litigation€betweenÏprivate€litigants€involving€private€interests,€should€notÏbe€applied€where€the€result€would€be€a€refusal€to€enforce€Ïa€claim€in€which€the€public€has€a€direct€and€substantialÏinterest.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓÌà  àThere€can€be€no€doubt€but€that€the€public€has€a€direct€andÏsubstantial€interest€in€ascertaining€the€constitutionality€of€itsÏlaws.€€We€hold€that€the€doctrine€of€"unclean€hands"€cannot,€exceptÏin€perhaps€under€the€most€compelling,€exigent,€unusual€andÏiniquitous€circumstances,€be€employed€as€a€device€to€circumvent€aÏchallenge€to€a€constitutional€issue.€€We€caution,€however,€thatÐ Ø6 +. Ðthis€statement€should€not€be€construed€as€holding€that€under€properÏcircumstances,€the€doctrine€of€"unclean€hands"€œcouldñËñ€ñËññÌññËñveñËññÌññÍñneverñÍñ›€beÏemployed€to€defeat€constitutional€issues.€€Such€circumstances€doÏnot€exist€here€and€we€leave€that€decision€to€another€œday.€€We€noteÏ›parentheticallyœ,€however,€that€the€doctrine€of€"unclean€hands"€andÏother€equitable€defenses€have€generally€not€been€allowed€to€defeatÏclaims€for€child€support.€€òòSeeóó€òòRutledge€v.€Barrettóó,€802€S.W.2d€604Ð ø@  Ð(Tenn.€1991).€€òòSee€alsoóó€T.C.A.€Ô% € Ôðð€36„5„101(a)(1)€which€provides,Ð Ø  Ðamong€other€things:€€"The€court€shall€not€refuse€to€consider€aÏmodi‚fication€of€a€prior€order€and€decree€as€it€relates€to€futureÏpayments€of€child€support€because€a€party€is€in€arrears€under€thatÏorder€and€decree€unless€the€arrearage€is€a€result€of€in‚tentionañÄñionalñÄññÅñlñÅñÏaction€by€a€party."׃×Ý ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р8"€ ÐÌà  àThe€wife€argues€in€her€brief€that€it€was€not€necessary€toÏaddress€the€constitutional€issues€in€order€to€make€a€finalÏdetermination€in€this€case.€€The€rationale€for€her€argument€seemsÏto€be€that€since€the€trial€court€deviated€from€the€strict€appliƒ¼cation€of€the€guidelines,€it€was€unnecessary€to€reach€the€conƒ¼stitutional€issues.€€While€we€agree€with€the€principle€enunciatedÏin€òòHayes€v.€City€of€Pigeon€Forgeóó,€883€S.W.2d€619€(Tenn.€App.€1994),Ð 81€%( Ðthat€courts€should€avoid€deciding€a€constitutional€issue€unless€theÐ 3`'* Ðissue€is€absolutely€necessary€for€the€determination€of€the€case,€weÏdo€not€believe€that€a€deviation€from€the€guidelines€pretermits›€aÏdecision€on€their€constitutional€viability.ÌÌà  àOn€the€subject€of€deviation€from€the€guidelines,€we€are€notÏconvinced€that€the€reasons€given€by€the€trial€court€for€a€deviationÏfrom€the€guidelines€œmeetñÆñsñÆñ›€the€requirements€set€forth€in€theÏguidelines€that€the€court€must€make€a€written€or€specific€findingÏthat€the€application€of€the€Child€Support€Guidelines€are€unjust€orÏinappropriate€in€this€case.€€òòSeeóó€Rule€1240„4„.02(7)€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòJonesÐ ˜à Ðv.€Jonesóó,€870€S.W.2d€281€(Tenn.€1994).€€On€remand,€we€suggest€thatÐ xÀ Ðthe€trial€court€make€specific€written€findings€as€required€by€theÏguidelines€if€the€court€finds€a€deviation€to€be€appropriate.€€We€doÏnot€mean€to€imply€that€a€deviation€is€or€is€not€appropriate€in€thisÏcase.€€That€determination€is€left€to€the€trial€court.ÌÌà  àAll€other€issues€are€pretermitted.ÌÌà  àWe€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€in€its€entirety€andÏremand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€a€reconsideration€of€all€theÏissues€properly€before€the€court€and€for€entry€of€a€judgmentÏconsistent€with€the€court's€findings€after€consideration€of€theÏconstitutional€issues.€€Costs€are€assessed€to€the€appellee.ÌÐ Ø6 +. Ðà  àPrior€to€further€proceedings,€the€State€Attorney€General€shallÏbe€notified€pursuant€to€Ô‡ X¶|XXXüOÔRule€24.04,€T.R.C.P.€and€Rule€32,€T.R.A.P.Ð ˜ à МÔ#†XüOXX X¶|=6#ÔÌÓÓ€€€€€Ìà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Don€T.€McMurray,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌSamuel€L.€Lewis,€Special€JudgeÌÐ  xÀ ÐÌÑ  ÑÑ7€üOXXdðXXdð7Ñ€€€à@ˆˆìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSˆÐ ¨ ð Ðà@$ìàAT€ñ»ñNASHVILLEñ»ññ»ñKNOXVILLEñ»ñˆÌÌÌÌJANET€K.€FLORENCE,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à  àCOFFEE€CHANCERYÐ X  Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€C.€A.€NO.€01A01„9802„CH„00085Ì€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellee€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à  àHON.€JOHN€ROLLINSÐ è0  Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à  àCHANCELLORÐ Ø  Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌDAVID€G.€FLORENCE,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à  àREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÐ ˆÐ Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Defendant„Appellant€€€)ÌÌÌÔ‡XüOXXXüOÔÌà@  &ìàò òòòJUDGMENTóóó óˆÐ (#p ÐÌÌÓÓà  àThis€appeal€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€from€theÏChancery€Court€of€Coffee€County,€briefs€and€argument€of€counsel.€ÏUpon€consideration€thereof,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€thereÏwas€reversible€error€in€the€trial€court.Ô#†XüOXXXüO¿;#ÔÐ ˜+à" Ðà  àWe€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€in€its€entirety€andÏremand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€a€reconsideration€of€all€theÏissues€properly€before€the€court€and€for€entry€of€a€judgmentÏconsistent€with€the€court's€findings€after€consideration€of€theÏconstitutional€issues.€€Costs€are€assessed€to€the€appellee.Ìâ âÐ Ø6 +. Ðà  àPrior€to€further€proceedings,€the€State€Attorney€General€shallÏâ âbe€notified€pursuant€to€Ô‡ X¶|XXXüOÔRule€24.04,€T.R.C.P.€and€Rule€32,€T.R.A.P.Ð ˜ à ÐÔ#†XüOXX X¶|?#ÔÌÓÓà€88)(#à_________________________________ñ·ñ_ñ·ñˆÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àñ±ññ°ñà  àñ°ññ±ññ²ñ€ñ²ññ¹ññ²ñ€ñ²ññ¹ññ²ñDon€T.€McMurray,€JudgeÌÌà€88)(#à_________________________________ñ²ññ¶ñ_ñ¶ññ²ñˆÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àñ²ññ³ññ²ñà  àñ²ññ³ññ´ñ€€ñ´ññµñHouston€M.€Goddard,€Presiding€Judgeñµññ¸ñÌÌà€88)(#à__________________________________ˆÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€Samuel€L.€Lewis,€Special€JudgeÌñ¸ñ